BBC confirms cuts to radio, online services

Evangelion said:
They don't need to introduce adverts at all. The ABC (Australia's equivalent of the Beeb) doesn't have any adverts, and we don't pay a license fee either. So it can be done.
Click to expand...

An aussie friend of mine just spat his coffee out.

You really can't compare the ABC to the BBC.
 
semi-pro waster said:
At the risk of starting something of a measuring contest, in your opinion how good is the output of ABC? I am aware that a lot of public broadcasting in other nations doesn't have the greatest reputation so wondered if the quality was comparable to the BBC which for all its faults is usually fairly well produced.
Click to expand...

In relative terms (keeping in mind that the Beeb's budget is the largest of any media organisation in the entire world) I believe that the ABC compares well against the Beeb. However, there can be no doubt that the Beeb is a far superior product.

Looking at the figures, it's not hard to see why the Beeb is still top dog:


BBC annual budget: ~£4.3 billion.
ABC annual budget: ~£68 million.
​

However, in recent years there has been a noticeable decline in the BBC's standards - particularly with regard to news reporting. Read Nick Davies' Flat Earth News to learn more.

BTW, Australia's commercial broadcasting is just as bad as Britain's and in some cases much worse. :eek:

Wicksta said:
An aussie friend of mine just spat his coffee out.

You really can't compare the ABC to the BBC.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. You can compare them and admit that the BBC massively out-performs the ABC because it receives enough money to run a small African nation, while the ABC has a tiny budget with which it is required to perform miracles. :)
 
I do think the BBC should have adverts on stuff it sends abroad, there is no point on the UK sitting on this material, we might as well sell it after we have watched it, why not? Suerly it is money that doesn't have to be paid for by us. I don't want to subside the rest of the world really especially when to watch half the American stuff we have to pay Sky £50.


I just hate Chris Moyles and his bunch of ass munchers on that god awful show so much, maybe they will get rid of him, please I would like to be able to listen to the radio in the morning.
 
they will of course use the same tactic that the socialist nazis use every time...

they talk about cutting the most popular services that they offer so they get the most resistance and then they get away with not cutting it. typical nazi behaviour.

i am surprised people still listen to tradional radio, i think people must listen to it in the cars.But six radio stations, funded by the tax payers ? i mean realy now. I think the bbc should be forced to make a profit like its competition, that would stop the bloat and waste. I vote for closing BBC completely or at least privatising it.
 
Last edited:
Bit of shame that 6 music is going, there was often alternative bands on there that i actually tuned in to hear.
Cant say i have gone to any other radio station for that reason.
 
Baboonanza said:
The BBC is in a difficult position here though. In order to justify the license fee it has to be competetive with ITV in prime time slots because that's where the most viewers are. And competition is good in general here.
Click to expand...

But I hate that about the BBC currently. They're not taking risks and they're being retardedly complacent.

Just out of interest, does anyone know what amount does the monthly subscription to HBO add up to for Americans? Is it similar to what the BBC recieves in its license fee?

This isn't a direct comparison and obviously HBO is commercial and doesn't have the massive amount of public services to provide but the BBC is hardly cash strapped...

I too think it's a shame they're axing 6 Music. I've never listened to it purely because I didn't know it existed, but now I'd like too. It's budget is tiny and could easily have been saved in other places. BBC3/BBC4 and Radio 3 are the obvious massive wastes of money, alll offering the worst cost per viewer/listener hour. BBC3 in particular isn't doing anything to justify it's existence IMO. BBC4/Radio 3 at least get some credit for being 'cultural'.
Click to expand...

BBC Four is good for airing Mad Men and Charlie Brooker's shows although admittedly they could do that on BBC2 (and do at a later date).
 
i feel sorry for the private media corporations having to compete with the BBC there is no american socialist media (although fox,abc,nbc) might aswell be socialist, they are government controlled enough to be....

But i do not watch TV or the RADIO and only watch the occasional BBC documentary i do not think i should have to fund this terrible station and all its propaganda and brainwashing. Then on top of it, they make you pay a bloody TV License. Ridiculous.
 
You haven't been here long groen but already I'm finding you very irritating with your sweeping statements about socialism of fascism

If you want propaganda then watch fox news, personally I prefer the slightly more balanced approach of the BBC (it's not perfect though)
 
Chimerical said:
But I hate that about the BBC currently. They're not taking risks and they're being retardedly complacent.
Click to expand...
I agree completely with this. The BBC has to compete with ITV/Channel 4 but it should be doing it by fostering new talent and taking risks on programmes, particularly commedy IMO, that the commercial stations wouldn't. Sometimes it gets it right but it gets it wrong far too often.

To completely ignore that a large proportion of the population likes things like Strictly would also be wrong though, they pay their license fee too and deserve to be served.

Another facet of the problem comes from the fact that the commercial media (especially News Corp.) takes every opportunity to attack the BBC over any minor infringment - however bogus - and it is forced to respond. How is the BBC supposed to produce ground breaking comedy when one precieved offensive comment can cause an epic controversy out of all proportion with the actual offense?

It never used to be like that, and I think it's a deliberate policy of pinning the BBC into a corner. So **** James Murdoch, he's a massive **** and I would punch him in the **** given half a chance :mad:
 
Last edited:
starfighter said:
I just hate Chris Moyles and his bunch of ass munchers on that god awful show so much, maybe they will get rid of him, please I would like to be able to listen to the radio in the morning.
Click to expand...
I like Moyles, I don't like how much we are forced to pay for these people though, same as top gear, great show, but it's basically people getting paid loads to **** about at our expense.
 
groen said:
i feel sorry for the private media corporations having to compete with the BBC there is no american socialist media (although fox,abc,nbc) might aswell be socialist, they are government controlled enough to be....

But i do not watch TV or the RADIO and only watch the occasional BBC documentary i do not think i should have to fund this terrible station and all its propaganda and brainwashing. Then on top of it, they make you pay a bloody TV License. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You should opt out of paying for the licence then. Hand your TV in to your local charity store. Problem solved :)
 
Squark said:
If you want propaganda then watch fox news, personally I prefer the slightly more balanced approach of the BBC (it's not perfect though)
Click to expand...
I can't actually watch the BBC news anymore. It's gone seriously down hill in recent years, it's turned into dumbed-down light entertainment. Panorama and Horizon have suffered the same fate, content sacrificed for improved viewing figures.

C4 has the only grown up news programme left :(

It's beginning to sound like I don't like the BBC, but there is still planty to love about it. Lots of room for improvement though.
 
all they need is radio 1 and 2 imo! scrap the rest of the crap! do they have a sports channel? if so keep that too.
 
What the BBC need to do to save money is to stop sending "High profile reporters" to areas when there has been a disaster.

A prime example of this was when the Earthquake hit Haiti.

The guy who was on the ground at the time was doing a brilliant job. He quite clearly had been in the area for some time. I even heard him at one stage speaking fluent French to some of the survivors.

What did the BBC do? Within a few days they sent Huw Edwards to report on matters.

Now I can understand perhaps flying in more TV Cameras and sound engineers and a few technicians to assist the local reporter, but Huw Edwards? He doesn't strike me as an expert on Haiti.

Notwithstanding this, he probably flew First Class and had a shedload of expenses.

I don't want to see so called 'Celebrity' Reporters on TV. I want to see highly experienced local reporters who are far more likely to give us the lowdown on what is really happening.

They could also save quiet a bit of money sacking a Presenter. Kate Silverton - how the hell anyone can rate her as a serious Journalist is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Andy90 said:
They could also save quiet a bit of money sacking a Presenter. Kate Silverton - how the hell anyone can rate her as a serious Journalist is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Oh God I agree.

She can't read the news, she get's things wrong and she generally annoys the hell out of me.

Really really cannot stand that woman. She's a newsreader who can't read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom